Agent诊断
- 作者仓库星标 3,406
- 作者更新于 实时读取
- 作者仓库 claude-octopus
- 领域
- 工程开发
- 兼容 Agent
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- 信任分
- 88 / 100 · 社区维护
- 作者 / 版本 / 许可
- @nyldn · 未声明 license
- Token 消耗评级
- 中等消耗
- 接入复杂程度
- 需简单配置
- 是否需要外部 API Key
- 不需要
- 兼容的系统
- 未声明(默认跨平台)
- 底层运行要求
- 无特殊要求
- 文件与系统权限
-
- 只读
- 允许写入 / 修改
- Shell 执行
- 网络行为
- 允许外网请求
- 安装命令数
- 26 条
档案由构建时根据 SKILL.md 与安装命令自动衍生,可能与作者实际意图存在差异。
需要注意: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: skill-debug
description: Debug issues methodically — use when stuck on errors, test failures, or unexpected behavior NO F…
category: 工程开发
runtime: 无特殊运行时
---
# skill-debug 输出预览
## PART A: 任务判断
- 适用问题:代码实现、重构、调试或代码审查。
- 输入要求:目标材料、限制条件、期望输出和验收方式。
- 证据边界:围绕“MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — DO NOT SKIP / The Iron Law / When to Use”读取原文规则,不把推断写成作者承诺。
## PART B: 执行结果
- **01** 任务判断:确认你的需求是否属于代码实现、重构、调试或代码审查,并标出输入、限制和预期结果。
- **02** 执行计划:优先按“MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — DO NOT SKIP / The Iron Law / When to Use”拆成步骤,说明每一步会读取什么、修改什么、产出什么。
- **03** 交付结果:给出可复制的命令、文件改动、检查清单或内容草稿,并说明如何继续迭代。
- **04** 风险边界:结合 读取文件、写入/修改文件、执行终端命令、会按任务需要访问外部网络、通常不需要额外 API Key 给出执行前确认项。
## Running Rules
- 读取文件、写入/修改文件、执行终端命令;会按任务需要访问外部网络;通常不需要额外 API Key。
- 先小样例验证,再放大到真实任务。
- 交付时同时给结果、检查口径和下一步迭代建议。 原文出现了 `/octo`、`/debug` 这类斜杠命令;如果你的 Agent 支持命令触发,优先用命令开场,再补充目标和边界。
告诉 Agent 目标文件或材料、期望结果、不可改范围、是否允许联网或执行命令。本 Skill 的权限画像是:读取文件、写入/修改文件、执行终端命令。
先用一个小任务确认它会围绕“MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — DO NOT SKIP / The Iron Law / When to Use”工作;涉及文件或命令时,先看 diff、日志、预览或测试结果。
检查最终产物是否包含明确结果、必要证据和下一步动作;如果输出泛泛而谈,就补充输入、边界和验收标准后重跑。
---
name: skill-debug
description: Debug issues methodically — use when stuck on errors, test failures, or unexpected behavior NO F…
category: 工程开发
source: nyldn/claude-octopus
---
# skill-debug
## 什么时候使用
- 用于组织测试、定位失败并形成修复闭环 适合处理工程开发场景下的代码实现、调试、重构、测试或代码审查,核心价值是把输入、判断、执行、验证和交付边界固定下来,避免 Agent 泛泛回答。 把任务拆成可执行、可检查、可继续迭代的步骤;通常不需…
- 面向代码实现、重构、调试或代码审查,优先处理能明确输入、步骤和验收标准的工作。
## 需要提供什么
- 目标材料、目录范围、期望结果和不可改动内容。
- 是否允许联网、执行命令、读写文件或调用外部服务。
## 执行规则
- 围绕「MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — DO NOT SKIP / The Iron Law / When to Use」组织步骤,不把推断写成作者事实。
- 读取文件、写入/修改文件、执行终端命令;会按任务需要访问外部网络;通常不需要额外 API Key。
- 先跑小样例,确认结果可检查后再扩大任务范围。
## 输出要求
- 给出最终产物、关键证据、验证方式和下一步动作。
- 信息不足时标记 unknown,不编造命令、平台或依赖。 作者原文负责流程事实;仓库文件负责来源和命令;流狐只补充适用场景、限制和质量判断。
skill "skill-debug" {
输入层 -> 用户目标 + 目标文件 + 禁止范围 + 验收标准
上下文层 -> MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — DO NOT SKIP / The Iron Law / When to Use
规则层 -> SKILL.md 触发条件 / 执行顺序 / 输出格式
运行层 -> 无特殊运行时 | 读取文件、写入/修改文件、执行终端命令 | 会按任务需要访问外部网络
安全层 -> 通常不需要额外 API Key + 小任务验证 + diff / 日志复核
输出层 -> 可复制结果 + 检查清单 + 下一步迭代
} Host: Codex CLI — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex. Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than
/octo:*slash commands. Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it. For host tool equivalents, seeskills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md.
Systematic Debugging
MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — DO NOT SKIP
When this skill is invoked, you MUST follow the 4-phase debugging process below. You are PROHIBITED from:
- Jumping straight to a fix without completing Phase 1 (Root Cause Investigation)
- Skipping the hypothesis step and guessing at solutions
- Deciding the bug is "obvious" and bypassing the systematic process
- Attempting more than 3 fixes without stopping to ask the user
Systematic debugging finds root causes in 15-30 minutes. Random fixes waste 2-3 hours. Follow the process.
Your first output line MUST be: 🐙 **CLAUDE OCTOPUS ACTIVATED** - Systematic Debugging
The Iron Law
Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
When to Use
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
Use ESPECIALLY when:
- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- You've already tried multiple fixes
- Previous fix didn't work
The Four Phases
┌──────────────────┐
│ Phase 1: ROOT │ ← Understand WHAT and WHY
│ CAUSE │
└────────┬─────────┘
↓
┌──────────────────┐
│ Phase 2: PATTERN │ ← Find working examples
│ ANALYSIS │
└────────┬─────────┘
↓
┌──────────────────┐
│ Phase 3: │ ← Form and test hypothesis
│ HYPOTHESIS │
└────────┬─────────┘
↓
┌──────────────────┐
│ Phase 4: │ ← Fix root cause, not symptom
│ IMPLEMENTATION │
└──────────────────┘
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
1. Read Error Messages Carefully
- Don't skip past errors or warnings
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
- Error messages often contain the exact solution
2. Reproduce Consistently
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it happen every time?
- If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
3. Check Recent Changes
git diff HEAD~5
git log --oneline -10
- What changed that could cause this?
- New dependencies, config changes?
- Environmental differences?
4. Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
When system has multiple components (API → service → database):
# Add diagnostic instrumentation at EACH boundary
echo "=== Layer 1: API endpoint ==="
echo "Input: $INPUT"
echo "=== Layer 2: Service layer ==="
echo "Received: $DATA"
echo "=== Layer 3: Database ==="
echo "Query: $QUERY"
Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks.
5. Trace Data Flow
When error is deep in call stack:
- Where does bad value originate?
- What called this with bad value?
- Keep tracing up until you find the source
- Fix at source, not at symptom
Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
1. Find Working Examples
- Locate similar working code in same codebase
- What works that's similar to what's broken?
2. Compare Against References
- If implementing a pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
- Don't skim - read every line
- Understand the pattern fully before applying
3. Identify Differences
- What's different between working and broken?
- List every difference, however small
- Don't assume "that can't matter"
4. Understand Dependencies
- What other components does this need?
- What settings, config, environment?
- What assumptions does it make?
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
1. Form Single Hypothesis
- State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
- Write it down
- Be specific, not vague
2. Test Minimally
- Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
- One variable at a time
- Don't fix multiple things at once
3. Verify Before Continuing
| Result | Action |
|---|---|
| Hypothesis confirmed | Proceed to Phase 4 |
| Hypothesis wrong | Form NEW hypothesis, return to Phase 3.1 |
| Still unclear | Gather more evidence, return to Phase 1 |
4. When You Don't Know
- Say "I don't understand X"
- Don't pretend to know
- Ask for help or research more
Phase 4: Implementation
1. Create Failing Test Case
- Simplest possible reproduction
- Automated test if possible
- MUST have before fixing
- Use TDD skill for proper test
2. Implement Single Fix
- Address the root cause identified
- ONE change at a time
- No "while I'm here" improvements
- No bundled refactoring
3. Verify Fix
- Test passes now?
- No other tests broken?
- Issue actually resolved?
4. If Fix Doesn't Work — 3-Strike Rule
| Attempts | Action |
|---|---|
| < 3 | Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information |
| ≥ 3 | STOP. Show your work. Ask the user. |
Anti-rationalization rules:
- "Should work now" → RUN IT. Confidence is not evidence.
- "I already tested earlier" → Code changed since then. Test again.
- "It's a trivial change" → Trivial changes break production. Verify.
- "I'm pretty sure this fixes it" → Pretty sure is not verified. Run the test.
5. After 3+ Failed Fixes: Question Architecture
Pattern indicating architectural problem:
- Each fix reveals new coupling/problem elsewhere
- Fixes require "massive refactoring"
- Each fix creates new symptoms
STOP and question fundamentals:
- Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
- Are we sticking with it through inertia?
- Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
Discuss with user before attempting more fixes. Do not attempt a 4th fix without explicit user approval.
Self-Regulation Score (Debug Fix Loops)
When debugging involves multiple fix attempts, track a WTF score to detect runaway fix loops. This complements the 3-Strike Rule above with quantitative drift detection.
Track these signals (default weights, override via ~/.claude-octopus/loop-config.conf):
| Event | Score Impact |
|---|---|
| Revert (git revert, undo, roll back a fix) | +15% |
| Touching files unrelated to the bug | +20% |
| A fix that requires changing >3 files | +5% |
| After the 15th fix attempt | +1% per additional fix |
| All remaining issues are Low severity | +10% |
If WTF score exceeds 20% — STOP immediately, even if under the 3-strike limit. Show the score breakdown and ask the user whether to continue.
Also watch for stuck patterns: If the same error message appears 3+ times across fix attempts, or you see A→B→A→B oscillation (fix X breaks Y, fix Y breaks X), announce the cycle and HALT on second detection.
Report the score with each fix attempt:
Fix attempt 2 | Self-regulation: 15% (1 revert, 0 unrelated files)
Strategy Rotation
After 2 failed fix attempts, stop and reconsider the root cause before trying another fix. If the strategy-rotation hook fires, it means you have been repeating a failing approach. Do not continue down the same path — return to Phase 1 and investigate from a different angle.
Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
If you catch yourself thinking:
- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
- "Just try changing X and see"
- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
- "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Issue is simple" | Simple issues have root causes too. |
| "Emergency, no time" | Systematic is FASTER than thrashing. |
| "Just try this first" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right. |
| "I see the problem" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
| "One more attempt" | 3+ failures = architectural problem. |
Platform Debugging
If you suspect the issue is with the Claude Code environment itself (e.g., network errors, context limits, tool failures):
- Run
/debug: This native command generates a debug bundle to help troubleshoot platform issues. - Check
/debugoutput: Look for "Context limit", "API error", or "Tool execution failed".
Auto-Freeze on Debug
When debugging a specific module, automatically activate freeze mode to prevent accidental edits outside the investigated area. This is a safety measure that keeps your debugging focused.
How It Works
At the start of Phase 1 (Root Cause Investigation), identify the primary module directory being debugged and activate freeze mode:
# Determine the module directory from the error location or user-specified target
# Example: if debugging src/auth/login.ts, freeze to src/auth/
freeze_dir="$(cd "<module-directory>" 2>/dev/null && pwd)"
echo "${freeze_dir}" > "/tmp/octopus-freeze-${CLAUDE_SESSION_ID:-$$}.txt"
This ensures that during investigation (Phases 1-3), you cannot accidentally modify files outside the module under investigation. When you reach Phase 4 (Implementation), the freeze boundary keeps your fix scoped to the right module.
Auto-freeze activates when:
- The bug is localized to a specific directory (e.g.,
src/auth/,lib/database/) - The user specifies a file or module to debug
Auto-freeze does NOT activate when:
- The bug spans multiple modules
- The root cause location is unknown at investigation start
- The user explicitly opts out
After debugging completes, remind the user to run /octo:unfreeze if needed, or remove the state file automatically.
Integration with Claude Octopus
When using octopus workflows for debugging:
| Workflow | Debugging Integration |
|---|---|
probe |
Research error patterns, similar issues |
grasp |
Define the problem scope clearly |
tangle |
Implement the fix with TDD |
squeeze |
Verify fix doesn't introduce vulnerabilities |
grapple |
Debate architectural alternatives after 3+ failures |
Multi-Agent Debugging
For complex bugs, use parallel exploration:
# Phase 1 parallelized
${HOME}/.claude-octopus/plugin/scripts/orchestrate.sh probe "Investigate auth failure from 4 angles"
# Perspectives:
# Agent 1: Error message analysis
# Agent 2: Recent changes review
# Agent 3: Data flow tracing
# Agent 4: Environment comparison
Quick Reference
| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Root Cause | Read errors, reproduce, check changes | Understand WHAT and WHY |
| 2. Pattern | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
| 3. Hypothesis | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
| 4. Implementation | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
The Bottom Line
Proposing fix → Root cause investigation completed
Otherwise → Not systematic debugging
Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix. Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing.
No shortcuts for debugging.
先判断是否适合
作者设计意图
作者的方法与取舍
边界和复核